Caucus 99 has a bunch of angry posters who claim they are no longer with Bernie because he hasn't spoken up for Julian. I've seen traces of that at wotb. I do not know if they are concern trolls, insecure, or simply rotten human beings. But this discourse supports the DNC, not WOTB.

On Caucus 99, A wise poster named Wally has a brilliant quote from Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

"Victorious warriors win first and then they go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Keep your eyes on the prize, please, people.

Let's all help Bernie WIN first and then fight all the battles we care about.

I didn't read most of the comments because I don't have that kind of time.
Instead I'll give my two cents on the subject.

First of all, whether you are "done" with Bernie or not depends on your values.
So you need to be open to their opinion if someone disagrees with you.
While the Assange issue is important to me, standing up to Wall Street and the MIC is much more important. You are free to disagree.

Secondly, we all need to acknowledge that no one here knows exactly what Bernie thinks about the Assange situation. Or any situation that he hasn't given his opinion on.
He probably will issue a statement at some point.

The real issue here, as I see it, isn't so much Bernie, as it is the Democratic Party.
People that are "done" with Bernie have universally felt betrayed by the Dems. And they are right to feel that way.
Many here were fooled by Obama. I wasn't, but I get how being betrayed makes you skeptical. You should be.

So IMHO, the question is "Is Bernie any different?"
Some here openly say "no".
To them I will repeat my comment from yesterday:

"My point is that if your opposition is going batshit crazy about people who you think are insufficiently strident, then maybe you need to step back and reasses the situation.

It's something I learned from economics - humility. It doesn't matter if you "are right". If the markets say you are wrong, then you are wrong.

In politics, your opposition gets a vote too. Even when they are "wrong".
The political environment is relative. It's part ideology, and part reality."

Bernie isn't a "lesser evil". If he was then TPTB wouldn't be fighting him so hard.

Even if Bernie gets elected he will disappoint a lot of people.
He will have very few allies and a lot of enemies, so getting his reforms passed will be hard. Plus I can see the ruling elite intentionally crashing the economy just to discredit him.
That's assuming they don't cheat him, or shoot him first.

So what's the point then?
Well, because fighting the corrupt ruling elite is justification in itself.
If they don't want Bernie to win, then I support Bernie.
Or to put it another way, "Because Fuck Them."

Also, you never know. Sometimes it works out.
I messaged someone this the other day:

"My preference is to be as positive as you can without ignoring reality.
Recognize that sometimes the good guys win, and even when the good guys lose the fight is often still worth fighting.
Accept that life itself is a losing battle (we are all going to die), so we all need to learn how to fight unwinnable battles with grace, dignity, and pride. There is a tragic beauty in a hopeless cause."

Comments

When political positions are dismissed with it, it's clear that there is no value in continuing the discussion.
In order the accusations were: Insecure, Concern Troll, Rotten Human Being, Having a closed mind, Ignorant of the facts, Hasty to judgement, tricked by TPTB and unable to accept defeat gracefully and honorably.

If that's the list of reasons why I should vote for Bernie, they're not very convincing. To be honest, sounds a lot like somebody else's accusations two years ago.

If you're going to quote Sun Tzu, I'm going to quote Nietzsche,

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”

And one that I think much more accurately applies to the predicament candidates find themselves in.

Frankly I think the Sun Tzu quote needs some parsing out before we can all agree it fits the context for which it was used. For one, the winning in the quote is referring to what exactly? The presidency? If so, I hardly think "winning" the presidency garners Bernie, or anyone, the power to fight his enemy. Quite the opposite judging from the past 70 years. Which is where I think the quote from Nietzsche works much better. Especially when applied to an election process where candidates are actually fighting against murderers and liars to simply stay politically, or literally alive.

When political positions are dismissed with it, it's clear that there is no value in continuing the discussion.
In order the accusations were: Insecure, Concern Troll, Rotten Human Being, Having a closed mind, Ignorant of the facts, Hasty to judgement, tricked by TPTB and unable to accept defeat gracefully and honorably.

If that's the list of reasons why I should vote for Bernie, they're not very convincing. To be honest, sounds a lot like somebody else's accusations two years ago.

If you're going to quote Sun Tzu, I'm going to quote Nietzsche,

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Those changes came about because of a critical mass of people who got him elected in the face of an economic crisis.

I don't have too many positive feelings about Nietzsche or nihilism. And that quote can be directed in many different ways, too.

I found the Demanding Perfection article on Way of the Bern rather vague but making some, but not all, points I consider valid. I haven't gotten around to reading the other thread.

I think folks here are being honest about their feelings. I try to and think I can understand how folks here feel. Lots of frustration, lots of anger at capitalism. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree. I wince at a lot of the hostility that's expressed towards Bernie but if that's the way people feel, I'm not going to characterize it as trolling or people as rotten. It's the fucking system that's rotten. It's the fucking one per cent who are rotten.

In any event, I think it's time for me to stage a Sun Tzu / Maoist tactical retreat. I really don't like to be used by anybody to make their points especially when I don't agree with all of them and even if there's a general agreement between us.

Addendum edit: I also wish folks would consider the context of the Sun Tzu quote as being in response to certain arguments, not simply in and of itself, and in the wider context of the content and thrust of all my comments in the short time I've been here.

Finally, I just really strongly feel we are at a critical historical juncture right now what with scientists agreeing we only have 12 years to stem the tide of climate change and given the level of warmongering we're at now making the doomsday clock move closer and closer to a nuclear midnight.

And one that I think much more accurately applies to the predicament candidates find themselves in.

Frankly I think the Sun Tzu quote needs some parsing out before we can all agree it fits the context for which it was used. For one, the winning in the quote is referring to what exactly? The presidency? If so, I hardly think "winning" the presidency garners Bernie, or anyone, the power to fight his enemy. Quite the opposite judging from the past 70 years. Which is where I think the quote from Nietzsche works much better. Especially when applied to an election process where candidates are actually fighting against murderers and liars to simply stay politically, or literally alive.

I think folks here are being honest about their feelings. I try to and think I can understand how folks here feel. Lots of frustration, lots of anger at capitalism. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree. I wince at a lot of the hostility that's expressed towards Bernie but if that's the way people feel, I'm not going to characterize it as trolling or people as rotten. It's the fucking system that's rotten. It's the fucking one per cent who are rotten.

The only thing I somewhat disagree with is that because folks don't agree with a particular politicians stances/views/policies--they're hostile toward them. Or, at least not if they express themselves in a civil tone and manner, especially, if their disagreement is with policy.

Personally, I base my support (or, nonsupport) of a candidate strictly on policy, and to a lesser extent, Party affiliation--both of which I consider to be well within my rights. And, conversely, within the right of others.

Count me out, when it comes to cult of personality. That's partly how we've gotten to where we are, in the first place. IMO.

Have a good one!

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

Those changes came about because of a critical mass of people who got him elected in the face of an economic crisis.

I don't have too many positive feelings about Nietzsche or nihilism. And that quote can be directed in many different ways, too.

I found the Demanding Perfection article on Way of the Bern rather vague but making some, but not all, points I consider valid. I haven't gotten around to reading the other thread.

I think folks here are being honest about their feelings. I try to and think I can understand how folks here feel. Lots of frustration, lots of anger at capitalism. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree. I wince at a lot of the hostility that's expressed towards Bernie but if that's the way people feel, I'm not going to characterize it as trolling or people as rotten. It's the fucking system that's rotten. It's the fucking one per cent who are rotten.

In any event, I think it's time for me to stage a Sun Tzu / Maoist tactical retreat. I really don't like to be used by anybody to make their points especially when I don't agree with all of them and even if there's a general agreement between us.

Addendum edit: I also wish folks would consider the context of the Sun Tzu quote as being in response to certain arguments, not simply in and of itself, and in the wider context of the content and thrust of all my comments in the short time I've been here.

Finally, I just really strongly feel we are at a critical historical juncture right now what with scientists agreeing we only have 12 years to stem the tide of climate change and given the level of warmongering we're at now making the doomsday clock move closer and closer to a nuclear midnight.

Either way, I don't feel we are really comparing apples to oranges when talking about what a President can actually change, or get done, in this political environment. In fact, I'd go further and say that the Executive Office is mostly a conduit to amassing a great fortune when leaving due to the favors granted to the oligarchy. For the voters, however, they seem to merely serve as a distracting, and necessary figure head.

Those changes came about because of a critical mass of people who got him elected in the face of an economic crisis.

I don't have too many positive feelings about Nietzsche or nihilism. And that quote can be directed in many different ways, too.

I found the Demanding Perfection article on Way of the Bern rather vague but making some, but not all, points I consider valid. I haven't gotten around to reading the other thread.

I think folks here are being honest about their feelings. I try to and think I can understand how folks here feel. Lots of frustration, lots of anger at capitalism. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree. I wince at a lot of the hostility that's expressed towards Bernie but if that's the way people feel, I'm not going to characterize it as trolling or people as rotten. It's the fucking system that's rotten. It's the fucking one per cent who are rotten.

In any event, I think it's time for me to stage a Sun Tzu / Maoist tactical retreat. I really don't like to be used by anybody to make their points especially when I don't agree with all of them and even if there's a general agreement between us.

Addendum edit: I also wish folks would consider the context of the Sun Tzu quote as being in response to certain arguments, not simply in and of itself, and in the wider context of the content and thrust of all my comments in the short time I've been here.

Finally, I just really strongly feel we are at a critical historical juncture right now what with scientists agreeing we only have 12 years to stem the tide of climate change and given the level of warmongering we're at now making the doomsday clock move closer and closer to a nuclear midnight.

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

. . . than was the prevailing order when FDR came to power. Certainly, that's true. There was an economic collapse the likes of which were never seen before.

I'll give trade and industrial unionism and leftist movements that created the critical mass for FDR to maneuver more credit than Smedley Butler although the latter no doubt played into the equation, too.

I'd also add that FDR saved capitalism from itself (somewhat similar to what Obama did although the latter's advocacy of working people paled in comparison to FDR).

Your concluding points about what a prez can accomplish today are well taken. I still think Bernie gives us a fighting chance.

Obama was not and is not a socialist in any way, shape or form. Bernie has made the idea of socialism acceptable which is amazing to me.

Finally, my mantra about this being the last viable go-around still holds. IMO after many years of activism, it's now or never not just for me but for the planet and the human race. That may sound overly dramatic, but I've cited my reasons again and again for feeling that way. And even if Bernie pulls off the seemingly impossible of winning the primary and general, we will still have to keep fighting. He can't do it by himself.

Oh well, I said I was going to take a tactical retreat, but I just wanted to show you the courtesy of a reply to your comments (which didn't include appellations like sell-out, coward, betrayer, sheepdog, etc etc).

Either way, I don't feel we are really comparing apples to oranges when talking about what a President can actually change, or get done, in this political environment. In fact, I'd go further and say that the Executive Office is mostly a conduit to amassing a great fortune when leaving due to the favors granted to the oligarchy. For the voters, however, they seem to merely serve as a distracting, and necessary figure head.

. . . than was the prevailing order when FDR came to power. Certainly, that's true. There was an economic collapse the likes of which were never seen before.

I'll give trade and industrial unionism and leftist movements that created the critical mass for FDR to maneuver more credit than Smedley Butler although the latter no doubt played into the equation, too.

I'd also add that FDR saved capitalism from itself (somewhat similar to what Obama did although the latter's advocacy of working people paled in comparison to FDR).

Your concluding points about what a prez can accomplish today are well taken. I still think Bernie gives us a fighting chance.

Obama was not and is not a socialist in any way, shape or form. Bernie has made the idea of socialism acceptable which is amazing to me.

Finally, my mantra about this being the last viable go-around still holds. IMO after many years of activism, it's now or never not just for me but for the planet and the human race. That may sound overly dramatic, but I've cited my reasons again and again for feeling that way. And even if Bernie pulls off the seemingly impossible of winning the primary and general, we will still have to keep fighting. He can't do it by himself.

Oh well, I said I was going to take a tactical retreat, but I just wanted to show you the courtesy of a reply to your comments (which didn't include appellations like sell-out, coward, betrayer, sheepdog, etc etc).

Either way, I don't feel we are really comparing apples to oranges when talking about what a President can actually change, or get done, in this political environment. In fact, I'd go further and say that the Executive Office is mostly a conduit to amassing a great fortune when leaving due to the favors granted to the oligarchy. For the voters, however, they seem to merely serve as a distracting, and necessary figure head.

@Wally
even something as basic as that can be characterized as “demanding perfection,” though.

People not personally affected just don’t care — they may make a few perfunctory noises, but it doesn’t really affect their estimation of, and emotional attraction to, FDR (or Dr. Seuss) one iota.

People can be all pro-refugee and anti-wall, unless it’s Palestinians, and then they’re anti-refugee and pro-Israel’s-wall. They can be pro-diversity but virulently anti-Chinese or anti-Russian or anti-white in general. There’s no logic to it. It’s just the way it is.

Those changes came about because of a critical mass of people who got him elected in the face of an economic crisis.

I don't have too many positive feelings about Nietzsche or nihilism. And that quote can be directed in many different ways, too.

I found the Demanding Perfection article on Way of the Bern rather vague but making some, but not all, points I consider valid. I haven't gotten around to reading the other thread.

I think folks here are being honest about their feelings. I try to and think I can understand how folks here feel. Lots of frustration, lots of anger at capitalism. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree. I wince at a lot of the hostility that's expressed towards Bernie but if that's the way people feel, I'm not going to characterize it as trolling or people as rotten. It's the fucking system that's rotten. It's the fucking one per cent who are rotten.

In any event, I think it's time for me to stage a Sun Tzu / Maoist tactical retreat. I really don't like to be used by anybody to make their points especially when I don't agree with all of them and even if there's a general agreement between us.

Addendum edit: I also wish folks would consider the context of the Sun Tzu quote as being in response to certain arguments, not simply in and of itself, and in the wider context of the content and thrust of all my comments in the short time I've been here.

Finally, I just really strongly feel we are at a critical historical juncture right now what with scientists agreeing we only have 12 years to stem the tide of climate change and given the level of warmongering we're at now making the doomsday clock move closer and closer to a nuclear midnight.

I'm trying to get out of here for a spell but I keep getting pulled back in.

I'm curious if you think you'd have voted for FDR knowing that he certainly played a role in it happening?

This also plays into the old IdPol great debate and AOC's comments about FDR and the New Deal.

Thanks in advance for your response if you choose to make one. I really am trying to pull myself out of here for awhile and just read and not comment.

#1.1.1
even something as basic as that can be characterized as “demanding perfection,” though.

People not personally affected just don’t care — they may make a few perfunctory noises, but it doesn’t really affect their estimation of, and emotional attraction to, FDR (or Dr. Seuss) one iota.

People can be all pro-refugee and anti-wall, unless it’s Palestinians, and then they’re anti-refugee and pro-Israel’s-wall. They can be pro-diversity but virulently anti-Chinese or anti-Russian or anti-white in general. There’s no logic to it. It’s just the way it is.

@Wally
or at least strongly suspect — and (2) that by some parallel-universe miracle the U.S. was even allowing non-military in the Territory (i.e. colony) of Hawaii to vote for president in 1932 / 1936 / 1940, it would be a tough decision, wouldn’t it?

“Certainly played a role” seems an odd way of understating matters — is there some perspective from which FDR did not directly and personally sign and issue Executive Order #9066? But in addition to the trampling of Japanese-American citizens’ civil rights and human rights, there’s the even murkier moral question of whether FDR had foreknowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Hey, let’s vote for this rich Mainland guy DJTGWB FDR whose secret plan is to get an anti-war America into the war — and who will either (1) find out our island is about to be bombed, think that’s a good thing, and ‘let it happen on purpose’ (LIHOP™), or even (2) have gamed it all out from the very beginning, way before imposing an embargo and sanctions and so on, to ‘make it happen on purpose’ (MIHOP™).”

But there were certainly other societal forces that led to his decision to support and sign.

Interesting, and many folks probably don't know, in the 1980s a reparations payment of $20,000 (=$42,000/2018) was made to each camp survivor. Payments totaled $1.6 billion (= $3,390,000,000/2018) to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned *and their heirs.*

I wonder if that precedent will be brought up in the presidential debates? I haven't come across Tulsi being besieged with that question (yet).

And thanks for your thoughtful albeit non-committal response. Please consider how people running for office don't jump to answer such questions.

#1.1.1.3.1
or at least strongly suspect — and (2) that by some parallel-universe miracle the U.S. was even allowing non-military in the Territory (i.e. colony) of Hawaii to vote for president in 1932 / 1936 / 1940, it would be a tough decision, wouldn’t it?

“Certainly played a role” seems an odd way of understating matters — is there some perspective from which FDR did not directly and personally sign and issue Executive Order #9066? But in addition to the trampling of Japanese-American citizens’ civil rights and human rights, there’s the even murkier moral question of whether FDR had foreknowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Hey, let’s vote for this rich Mainland guy DJTGWB FDR whose secret plan is to get an anti-war America into the war — and who will either (1) find out our island is about to be bombed, think that’s a good thing, and ‘let it happen on purpose’ (LIHOP™), or even (2) have gamed it all out from the very beginning, way before imposing an embargo and sanctions and so on, to ‘make it happen on purpose’ (MIHOP™).”

@Wally
Do you think a one-time blanket payment would have been accepted as sufficient reparations for all time, or would there have been a detailed ongoing effort to document, catalog, and obtain compensation for every family’s and individual’s specific loss? Something like a “Jewish Claims Conference”?

But there were certainly other societal forces that led to his decision to support and sign.

Interesting, and many folks probably don't know, in the 1980s a reparations payment of $20,000 (=$42,000/2018) was made to each camp survivor. Payments totaled $1.6 billion (= $3,390,000,000/2018) to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned *and their heirs.*

I wonder if that precedent will be brought up in the presidential debates? I haven't come across Tulsi being besieged with that question (yet).

And thanks for your thoughtful albeit non-committal response. Please consider how people running for office don't jump to answer such questions.

And one that I think much more accurately applies to the predicament candidates find themselves in.

Frankly I think the Sun Tzu quote needs some parsing out before we can all agree it fits the context for which it was used. For one, the winning in the quote is referring to what exactly? The presidency? If so, I hardly think "winning" the presidency garners Bernie, or anyone, the power to fight his enemy. Quite the opposite judging from the past 70 years. Which is where I think the quote from Nietzsche works much better. Especially when applied to an election process where candidates are actually fighting against murderers and liars to simply stay politically, or literally alive.

@Anja Geitz
for a general to merely go and win. Bill Clinton won, and it hurt us badly. His policies and legacy sucked greatly, but "it was a glorious victory" all the same. Obama also won and it too hurt much more than it helped. If the vision is that a triumphant Bernie sweeps into office and then tries little and accomplishes less, then wtf is the point at all.

Old tactic oft attributed to lawyers. If the facts favor the opponent, attack the law. If the law favors the opponent, attack the facts. If both varor the opponent attack the opponent or his counsel. Those who lead with invective expose themselves as having nothing of merit or substance to say, and all the quotes and homilies in the universe will not remedy that.

And one that I think much more accurately applies to the predicament candidates find themselves in.

Frankly I think the Sun Tzu quote needs some parsing out before we can all agree it fits the context for which it was used. For one, the winning in the quote is referring to what exactly? The presidency? If so, I hardly think "winning" the presidency garners Bernie, or anyone, the power to fight his enemy. Quite the opposite judging from the past 70 years. Which is where I think the quote from Nietzsche works much better. Especially when applied to an election process where candidates are actually fighting against murderers and liars to simply stay politically, or literally alive.

up

0 users have voted.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

The Sun Tzu quote was a response to a slew of what I consider rather venomous character accusations against Bernie such as "sheepdog," "sell-out," and the like.

I don't think it would have been apt applied to the Clintons or Obama. I do believe it is apt applied to Bernie's situation today.

I certainly agree with you that "Those who lead with invective expose themselves as having nothing of merit or substance to say, and all the quotes and homilies in the universe will not remedy that."

#1.1
for a general to merely go and win. Bill Clinton won, and it hurt us badly. His policies and legacy sucked greatly, but "it was a glorious victory" all the same. Obama also won and it too hurt much more than it helped. If the vision is that a triumphant Bernie sweeps into office and then tries little and accomplishes less, then wtf is the point at all.

Old tactic oft attributed to lawyers. If the facts favor the opponent, attack the law. If the law favors the opponent, attack the facts. If both varor the opponent attack the opponent or his counsel. Those who lead with invective expose themselves as having nothing of merit or substance to say, and all the quotes and homilies in the universe will not remedy that.

I wont be again. Yeah, you will be. And if you dont get behind Bernie, you will be burning yourself.

Meanwhile the CIA is literally posting here and elsewhere trying to discourage you from voting in your own interests.

Dont do their work for them.@detroitmechworks
so how much does the CIA pay you to shoot down the left or are you another who unwittingly undermines your own self interest for free?

When political positions are dismissed with it, it's clear that there is no value in continuing the discussion.
In order the accusations were: Insecure, Concern Troll, Rotten Human Being, Having a closed mind, Ignorant of the facts, Hasty to judgement, tricked by TPTB and unable to accept defeat gracefully and honorably.

If that's the list of reasons why I should vote for Bernie, they're not very convincing. To be honest, sounds a lot like somebody else's accusations two years ago.

If you're going to quote Sun Tzu, I'm going to quote Nietzsche,

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”

@Battle of Blair Mountain
here. Of our vanishingly small set of rules, civility is very possibly paramount, and impugning the integrity of a poster or commenter cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, by viewed as civil. If you truthfully believe that Bernie is the answer to everybody's ills, make your point to that effect in a civil manner and do not impugn their motives or intelligence for holding a different view.

I wont be again. Yeah, you will be. And if you dont get behind Bernie, you will be burning yourself.

Meanwhile the CIA is literally posting here and elsewhere trying to discourage you from voting in your own interests.

Dont do their work for them.#1 so how much does the CIA pay you to shoot down the left or are you another who unwittingly undermines your own self interest for free?

up

0 users have voted.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@enhydra lutris
but it's a proven historical fact that the CIA sends people everywhere to do exactly what DMW was doing. Now, I've read plenty of DMW's posts and I don't think he's actually part of some operation. That was sarcasm. But the point is they actually have to be here on this site. Do the math.

I think it's time to stand together behind Bernie. Warts and all. And back Tulsi IMO, 100%. Because at this point, we have to face up to the fact, we are all in here. The earth won't give us 4 more years of either oligarch owned party.

#1.2
here. Of our vanishingly small set of rules, civility is very possibly paramount, and impugning the integrity of a poster or commenter cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, by viewed as civil. If you truthfully believe that Bernie is the answer to everybody's ills, make your point to that effect in a civil manner and do not impugn their motives or intelligence for holding a different view.

#1.2.2 but it's a proven historical fact that the CIA sends people everywhere to do exactly what DMW was doing. Now, I've read plenty of DMW's posts and I don't think he's actually part of some operation. That was sarcasm. But the point is they actually have to be here on this site. Do the math.

I think it's time to stand together behind Bernie. Warts and all. And back Tulsi IMO, 100%. Because at this point, we have to face up to the fact, we are all in here. The earth won't give us 4 more years of either oligarch owned party.

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.
After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I've given my $0.02 on the subject. I put some thought into it.

on an unrelated note, the GOS is dropping again.

Another website is scolding us and we are meant to feel, what, by this news? Chastised? Warned? Enlightened?

In what possible way is the information in this essay meant to garner anything but rancor?

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.
After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I've given my $0.02 on the subject. I put some thought into it.

on an unrelated note, the GOS is dropping again.

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.

after my comment you edited it to this;

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.
After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I've given my $0.02 on the subject. I put some thought into it.

on an unrelated note, the GOS is dropping again.

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.

after my comment you edited it to this;

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I'm feeling especially battered these day by the mean spirited chatter I am hearing across the internet surrounding Assange's arrest, and your gracious acknowledgement of my feelings here not only makes me feel I was heard, but makes me feel my comment to you was a bit harsh. I apologize for that. Your work here stands alone as a valuable source of information for me, as well as others I'm sure.

Greatest respect to you Gjohnsit.

#2.1.2
and personally I would be interested in people talking about me, good or bad.
I've been on the interwebs for so long that I have some very thick skin.

But I guess not everyone is like me. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

I'm not interested in that essay from The Way of the Bern, because I no longer listen to political discussions based on character attacks and voter-shaming. I don't know anything about Way of the Bern, so I'm not gonna cast shade on the whole site, but anybody saying "I don't know whether they're concern trolls, insecure, or just rotten people" about people just because they criticized a politician you like is not on my side. They're speaking a political language invented by the far right in the early 80s which revolves almost entirely around the hatchet job. Its fuel is character attacks.

It used to be that we criticized the Republicans for basing politics on personal hatchet jobs; now not only the Clintonites but even people farther left have fully embraced that politics.

You'll notice I'm not saying that people who support Bernie despite his bad position on Assange are terrible people. No character attack has been made by me. Yet somehow this guy (or gal?) over at Way of the Bern has narrowed my character down to being a troll, being insecure, or being a rotten person, without ever having spoken to me. He just knows it, because I was mean about Bernie.

In fact, I'm not mean about Bernie. I still like Bernie. It's just not possible for me to follow him as a leader, given what I think the political situation is.

But refusing to follow the leader, or making any criticism of the leader whatever, will bring on these sort of character attacks from some one of the leader's followers--or from more than one--and that's what political discussion is in this country today. It's a shaming contest. And what for? For disagreeing--or worse, for daring to criticize a politician.

I thought people taking about C99P (with hundreds of comments) was news in itself.
After a quick look at the comments I believe you would find them enlightening. Many of them disagreed with the author's language.

I've given my $0.02 on the subject. I put some thought into it.

on an unrelated note, the GOS is dropping again.

up

0 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

I'm not interested in that essay from The Way of the Bern, because I no longer listen to political discussions based on character attacks and voter-shaming. I don't know anything about Way of the Bern, so I'm not gonna cast shade on the whole site, but anybody saying "I don't know whether they're concern trolls, insecure, or just rotten people" about people just because they criticized a politician you like is not on my side. They're speaking a political language invented by the far right in the early 80s which revolves almost entirely around the hatchet job. Its fuel is character attacks.

It used to be that we criticized the Republicans for basing politics on personal hatchet jobs; now not only the Clintonites but even people farther left have fully embraced that politics.

You'll notice I'm not saying that people who support Bernie despite his bad position on Assange are terrible people. No character attack has been made by me. Yet somehow this guy (or gal?) over at Way of the Bern has narrowed my character down to being a troll, being insecure, or being a rotten person, without ever having spoken to me. He just knows it, because I was mean about Bernie.

In fact, I'm not mean about Bernie. I still like Bernie. It's just not possible for me to follow him as a leader, given what I think the political situation is.

But refusing to follow the leader, or making any criticism of the leader whatever, will bring on these sort of character attacks from some one of the leader's followers--or from more than one--and that's what political discussion is in this country today. It's a shaming contest. And what for? For disagreeing--or worse, for daring to criticize a politician.

...last I checked, gjohnsit was merely providing his OPINION. Again, I'm really disappointed in your comment, which was little more than a personal attack. I would like to think that I know you are better than that !!!

Another website is scolding us and we are meant to feel, what, by this news? Chastised? Warned? Enlightened?

In what possible way is the information in this essay meant to garner anything but rancor?

@gjohnsit
in the sense that if We the People don’t demand of our leaders that they defend Assange and the Wikileaks journalism model, in the future the public will be even less informed about “our” bombs blowing up women and children than they are today with our current mainstream-gatekeeper, “information oligarchy”-controlled environment.

@lotlizard
"the destruction of the working class and our bombs blowing up women and children still rank higher on my personal values list."

Without people like Assange and Manning would we even know women and children were being blown up?

#3.2
in the sense that if We the People don’t demand of our leaders that they defend Assange and the Wikileaks journalism model, in the future the public will be even less informed about “our” bombs blowing up women and children than they are today with our current mainstream-gatekeeper, “information oligarchy”-controlled environment.

@dfarrah
Assange is NOT formally charged with publishing classified data. Assange is formally charged with conspiracy to breach a government computer.
That may or may not be a valid crime. I suspect it is.
Assange may or may not be guilty even if this is a valid crime.
It would be political suicide to call for the charges to be dropped if he is guilty and ultimately found guilty.

Equating Bernie with Hillary or Bibi, is in my mind, complete idiocy. Some people here, and you know who you are, would call Jesus Christ a sheepdog for Satan because he didn't instantly destroy the Roman Empire. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered four states, so Lincoln was a closet slaver.

Politics is the art of the possible.

"First of all, whether you are "done" with Bernie or not depends on your values."

Then you mention MIC and Wall Street. I'm all about economics, too.

Freedom of the press is extraordinarily important (like our other rights) - how else would we find out what MIC and WS are doing?

You think just because the charges aren't for posting classified information that isn't what this is all about? Wikileaks really pissed the CIA off when he posted the vault 7 stuff. Heard anything about the guy that gave it to them? Schultz I think his is name is getting the Chelsea treatment right now.

It's a good bet that if Assange steps foot here more charges will be added.

#3
Assange is NOT formally charged with publishing classified data. Assange is formally charged with conspiracy to breach a government computer.
That may or may not be a valid crime. I suspect it is.
Assange may or may not be guilty even if this is a valid crime.
It would be political suicide to call for the charges to be dropped if he is guilty and ultimately found guilty.

Equating Bernie with Hillary or Bibi, is in my mind, complete idiocy. Some people here, and you know who you are, would call Jesus Christ a sheepdog for Satan because he didn't instantly destroy the Roman Empire. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered four states, so Lincoln was a closet slaver.

Politics is the art of the possible.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

You think just because the charges aren't for posting classified information that isn't what this is all about? Wikileaks really pissed the CIA off when he posted the vault 7 stuff. Heard anything about the guy that gave it to them? Schultz I think his is name is getting the Chelsea treatment right now.

It's a good bet that if Assange steps foot here more charges will be added.

You think just because the charges aren't for posting classified information that isn't what this is all about? Wikileaks really pissed the CIA off when he posted the vault 7 stuff. Heard anything about the guy that gave it to them? Schultz I think his is name is getting the Chelsea treatment right now.

It's a good bet that if Assange steps foot here more charges will be added.

#3
Assange is NOT formally charged with publishing classified data. Assange is formally charged with conspiracy to breach a government computer.
That may or may not be a valid crime. I suspect it is.
Assange may or may not be guilty even if this is a valid crime.
It would be political suicide to call for the charges to be dropped if he is guilty and ultimately found guilty.

Equating Bernie with Hillary or Bibi, is in my mind, complete idiocy. Some people here, and you know who you are, would call Jesus Christ a sheepdog for Satan because he didn't instantly destroy the Roman Empire. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered four states, so Lincoln was a closet slaver.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
classified information, then they better arrest and charge the publishers for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, just to name a few.

This is ALL about the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Without the free flow of information, we are NOT a free people. IMO, this is the most important issue facing us right now. This is why so many of us here are upset that the ONLY elected offcial to speak out about it is Tulsi Gabbard. Without the free flow of information via a free press, we cannot know what is happening or even how to organize against whatever tyranny the government decides to impose upon us.

If the US is successful against Assange who is neither a US citizen nor ever a resident of the United States, then the US can go anywhere in the world and prosecute any journalist for publishing inconvenient, embarassing, or dissenting information or opinion pieces. This is just how dangerous a precedent the Assange case is.

#3
Assange is NOT formally charged with publishing classified data. Assange is formally charged with conspiracy to breach a government computer.
That may or may not be a valid crime. I suspect it is.
Assange may or may not be guilty even if this is a valid crime.
It would be political suicide to call for the charges to be dropped if he is guilty and ultimately found guilty.

Equating Bernie with Hillary or Bibi, is in my mind, complete idiocy. Some people here, and you know who you are, would call Jesus Christ a sheepdog for Satan because he didn't instantly destroy the Roman Empire. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered four states, so Lincoln was a closet slaver.

Politics is the art of the possible.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Remember during the Iraq war when we bombed the hotel where many journalists were staying? During the Iraq war CNN and others embedded journalists with the military to make sure they saw and wrote about what the military wanted them to. Then there's that journalist who sued the government to take him off the kill list of Obama's Tuesday meetings.

#3.3 classified information, then they better arrest and charge the publishers for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, just to name a few.

This is ALL about the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Without the free flow of information, we are NOT a free people. IMO, this is the most important issue facing us right now. This is why so many of us here are upset that the ONLY elected offcial to speak out about it is Tulsi Gabbard. Without the free flow of information via a free press, we cannot know what is happening or even how to organize against whatever tyranny the government decides to impose upon us.

If the US is successful against Assange who is neither a US citizen nor ever a resident of the United States, then the US can go anywhere in the world and prosecute any journalist for publishing inconvenient, embarassing, or dissenting information or opinion pieces. This is just how dangerous a precedent the Assange case is.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

#3.3 classified information, then they better arrest and charge the publishers for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, just to name a few.

This is ALL about the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Without the free flow of information, we are NOT a free people. IMO, this is the most important issue facing us right now. This is why so many of us here are upset that the ONLY elected offcial to speak out about it is Tulsi Gabbard. Without the free flow of information via a free press, we cannot know what is happening or even how to organize against whatever tyranny the government decides to impose upon us.

If the US is successful against Assange who is neither a US citizen nor ever a resident of the United States, then the US can go anywhere in the world and prosecute any journalist for publishing inconvenient, embarassing, or dissenting information or opinion pieces. This is just how dangerous a precedent the Assange case is.

@WoodsDweller
surprised to discover you are the topic of conversation in any conversation where you aren't present.

or is it? because I am always surprised to learn that people talk about me when I'm not around, so I've just defined humility as something that I specifically have ... which doesn't seem very humble. ah, the paradox!

that anyone knows we exist. Aren't we just a few dozen people spinning records for one another? What's the old saying? "Any press is good press"?

up

0 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

so I've just defined humility as something that I specifically have ... which doesn't seem very humble. ah, the paradox!

#4
surprised to discover you are the topic of conversation in any conversation where you aren't present.

or is it? because I am always surprised to learn that people talk about me when I'm not around, so I've just defined humility as something that I specifically have ... which doesn't seem very humble. ah, the paradox!

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

@UntimelyRippd
At least, that’s what can come to mind if one grew up reading Martin Gardner — and later, Douglas Hofstadter — columns in Scientific American . . .

#4
surprised to discover you are the topic of conversation in any conversation where you aren't present.

or is it? because I am always surprised to learn that people talk about me when I'm not around, so I've just defined humility as something that I specifically have ... which doesn't seem very humble. ah, the paradox!

@lotlizard
because when you reach some particular level of significance, you have to be an idiot to be surprised that people know who you are and talk about you when you aren't in the room. an effective, popular teacher can have humility, but probably receives both formal and informal recognitions, and so cannot remain unaware.

i think this remark by Bobby Orr -- whom some folk argue was the greatest hockey player of all time, Gretzky's records notwithstanding -- illustrates Orr's very real humility:

I've been gifted. The world is full of people who not only haven't been gifted, but have had something taken away from them. All I have to do is see one of them, some little girl who can't walk, and then I don't think I'm such a hero anymore. I think that compared to them, I'm a very small article.

Orr was dominating games in a league for 17 and 18 year olds when he was 14, with his jersey hanging down to his knees.

#4.1
At least, that’s what can come to mind if one grew up reading Martin Gardner — and later, Douglas Hofstadter — columns in Scientific American . . .

up

0 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

#4.1.2
because when you reach some particular level of significance, you have to be an idiot to be surprised that people know who you are and talk about you when you aren't in the room. an effective, popular teacher can have humility, but probably receives both formal and informal recognitions, and so cannot remain unaware.

i think this remark by Bobby Orr -- whom some folk argue was the greatest hockey player of all time, Gretzky's records notwithstanding -- illustrates Orr's very real humility:

I've been gifted. The world is full of people who not only haven't been gifted, but have had something taken away from them. All I have to do is see one of them, some little girl who can't walk, and then I don't think I'm such a hero anymore. I think that compared to them, I'm a very small article.

When I’m around either of them, I realize what an indescribably precious gift it is to be able to see. Other people we encounter seem similarly moved to reflection.

I think Bobby Orr captured the feeling very well. It’s humbling.

#4.1.2
because when you reach some particular level of significance, you have to be an idiot to be surprised that people know who you are and talk about you when you aren't in the room. an effective, popular teacher can have humility, but probably receives both formal and informal recognitions, and so cannot remain unaware.

i think this remark by Bobby Orr -- whom some folk argue was the greatest hockey player of all time, Gretzky's records notwithstanding -- illustrates Orr's very real humility:

I've been gifted. The world is full of people who not only haven't been gifted, but have had something taken away from them. All I have to do is see one of them, some little girl who can't walk, and then I don't think I'm such a hero anymore. I think that compared to them, I'm a very small article.

it's more like another straw...maybe not the final one but close to it.

if you don't like Bernie's foreign policy stances then this is another example of the difference between who he is and what you want. If that difference is now too great, or if you can tell that, in general, he's not the right candidate then you can be "done" with him.

My darling wife gave up on Obama when he voted for FISA. Not me. I needed more evidence. My point came in early February 2009, which probably seems like I was very generous to him! It turns out sharahazade was right in her instincts. I suspect dkmich is, too, with Bernie.

Sometimes Lesser Evil is the way to go, sometimes not.
It depends on how much space is between the two choices.
Is Bernie v Trump the same as Hillary v Trump?
I say "No". YMMV, but don't tell me I'm a dupe or your purity makes you morally superior.

it's more like another straw...maybe not the final one but close to it.

if you don't like Bernie's foreign policy stances then this is another example of the difference between who he is and what you want. If that difference is now too great, or if you can tell that, in general, he's not the right candidate then you can be "done" with him.

My darling wife gave up on Obama when he voted for FISA. Not me. I needed more evidence. My point came in early February 2009, which probably seems like I was very generous to him! It turns out sharahazade was right in her instincts. I suspect dkmich is, too, with Bernie.

IMPORTANT: This letter is a pretty clear signal from BERNIE SANDERS that he is not going to countenance a repeat of the 2016 primary, when he & his supporters believe the Democratic establishment worked to deny him the party's presidential nomination. https://t.co/pikkxpvB8h

it's more like another straw...maybe not the final one but close to it.

if you don't like Bernie's foreign policy stances then this is another example of the difference between who he is and what you want. If that difference is now too great, or if you can tell that, in general, he's not the right candidate then you can be "done" with him.

My darling wife gave up on Obama when he voted for FISA. Not me. I needed more evidence. My point came in early February 2009, which probably seems like I was very generous to him! It turns out sharahazade was right in her instincts. I suspect dkmich is, too, with Bernie.

IMPORTANT: This letter is a pretty clear signal from BERNIE SANDERS that he is not going to countenance a repeat of the 2016 primary, when he & his supporters believe the Democratic establishment worked to deny him the party's presidential nomination. https://t.co/pikkxpvB8h

@gjohnsit
former BFFs are being meanies and saying bad things about HIM.

He’s not said one thing about how he willingly joined in a conspiracy to delegitimize a duly and legally elected president and his administration by actively committing sedition. There are no two ways about it, he is a willing co-conspirator. He’s ‘called out’ RUSSIA’s!!! Interference plenty of times. Shouldn’t he ‘fess up’ and tell the truth before anyone even considers voting for him? I believe he should. We’ll see if truth wins out. And it’s not like the truth isn’t known anyway. So the longer he delays, the uglier it looks.

#5
There is a rush to judgement on Bernie. For instance, what if Bernie comes out strongly in favor of Assange tomorrow?

Just look at what happened today. People have accused Bernie of sheepdogging because he hasn't pushed back against the Dem establishment...until now.

NEW: In a warning shot to the Democratic establishment & its allies, @BernieSanders accuses the CLINTON-linked @AmProg & its sister org @CAPAction of smearing him & other progressive Democratic presidential candidates. "This … needs to stop," he writes. https://t.co/wYUhnWuPxm

IMPORTANT: This letter is a pretty clear signal from BERNIE SANDERS that he is not going to countenance a repeat of the 2016 primary, when he & his supporters believe the Democratic establishment worked to deny him the party's presidential nomination. https://t.co/pikkxpvB8h

progressive, issue oriented candidate out there and the most inspirational. The DNC had to cheat so that their chosen candidate could lose to Trump. We know this because of Wikileaks, which presents a conflict of interest for Sanders.

I doubt that there is another candidate with enough of a following to go up against TPTB. Mike Gravel has stepped forward before only to fade away.

We can sink Bernie, but that leaves us at the mercy of the duopoly.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

progressive, issue oriented candidate out there and the most inspirational. The DNC had to cheat so that their chosen candidate could lose to Trump. We know this because of Wikileaks, which presents a conflict of interest for Sanders.

I doubt that there is another candidate with enough of a following to go up against TPTB. Mike Gravel has stepped forward before only to fade away.

Sanders is not the lesser of evils, because I've been pondering that formula lately. Nobody is perfect -- thus the famous words of the famous rabbi, as regards the first hurler of stones. In one sense, then, given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

That's not a very satisfying conclusion. So ... how do we "quantify" the moral/ethical status of an individual, such that we can (each of us presumably according to our own values set) feel, not that we are settling for the lesser of two evils, but are actively choosing a positive force for good?

up

0 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd
I used the term "lesser evil" in the context of what the Dems have been presenting us since 1992 (or 1976).
It's a relative statement that can be debated for a long time.

I meant he wasn't a "lesser evil" because the political establishment (of both parties) doesn't want him.

As for the conclusion (and thank you for reading all of it), sorry if it isn't more inspiring. I can only speak for myself, but I know evil when I see it, and the ruling elite are it. So if they view Bernie as an enemy, then he is my ally. It's just a bonus that I also believe that he wants to do good.

Sanders is not the lesser of evils, because I've been pondering that formula lately. Nobody is perfect -- thus the famous words of the famous rabbi, as regards the first hurler of stones. In one sense, then, given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

That's not a very satisfying conclusion. So ... how do we "quantify" the moral/ethical status of an individual, such that we can (each of us presumably according to our own values set) feel, not that we are settling for the lesser of two evils, but are actively choosing a positive force for good?

given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

If we're given a choice between hiring two yuckleheads to serve coffee at Starbucks, the conversation about the lesser of yuckleheads might have a practical bent, or maybe a comical one.

But a choice between two anybodies for the Executive office where they will legislate on behalf of our potable water resources, our food, our healthcare, our social security, allocating tax resources for war munitions? Then the philosophical argument might get a little lost in the emotional one. Although, I realize, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, it's sometimes difficult to separate the two when the stakes are so high.

Sanders is not the lesser of evils, because I've been pondering that formula lately. Nobody is perfect -- thus the famous words of the famous rabbi, as regards the first hurler of stones. In one sense, then, given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

That's not a very satisfying conclusion. So ... how do we "quantify" the moral/ethical status of an individual, such that we can (each of us presumably according to our own values set) feel, not that we are settling for the lesser of two evils, but are actively choosing a positive force for good?

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

If we're given a choice between hiring two yuckleheads to serve coffee at Starbucks, the conversation about the lesser of yuckleheads might have a practical bent, or maybe a comical one.

But a choice between two anybodies for the Executive office where they will legislate on behalf of our potable water resources, our food, our healthcare, our social security, allocating tax resources for war munitions? Then the philosophical argument might get a little lost in the emotional one. Although, I realize, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, it's sometimes difficult to separate the two when the stakes are so high.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

There are more than 2. LoTE does not exist; it is a fabricated mental cage for remote control over a political population.@UntimelyRippd

The very premise is absurd, illogical, and manipulative.

Sanders is not the lesser of evils, because I've been pondering that formula lately. Nobody is perfect -- thus the famous words of the famous rabbi, as regards the first hurler of stones. In one sense, then, given the choice between two anybodies for anything, one of them will be the lesser of two evils.

That's not a very satisfying conclusion. So ... how do we "quantify" the moral/ethical status of an individual, such that we can (each of us presumably according to our own values set) feel, not that we are settling for the lesser of two evils, but are actively choosing a positive force for good?

@gjohnsit
Would you kindly indicate, each time you edit a comment, that you've actually done so?

I've been following along in real time here, and it's been the case in more than one instance that you've added to, or otherwise changed, what you've said, after another poster has responded. Personally, I feel it's just common courtesy.

In fact, I thought the edits helped clarify and expand on my positions, which is a good thing.

But if it bothers people, I'll stop

#8.1 Would you kindly indicate, each time you edit a comment, that you've actually done so?

I've been following along in real time here, and it's been the case in more than one instance that you've added to, or otherwise changed, what you've said, after another poster has responded. Personally, I feel it's just common courtesy.

In fact, I thought the edits helped clarify and expand on my positions, which is a good thing.

But if it bothers people, I'll stop

up

0 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@gjohnsit
and this is only my opinion in the context of right now. IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

This is not them about weighing options as to whom to offend or anything else. This is not about them weighing in on whether or not Julian Assange is a good person. This is all about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know. Full stop.

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

I keep shaking my head over how simple this all is. Do our Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights or not?

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

This right here ^^^^^

#8.1 and this is only my opinion in the context of right now. IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

This is not them about weighing options as to whom to offend or anything else. This is not about them weighing in on whether or not Julian Assange is a good person. This is all about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know. Full stop.

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

I keep shaking my head over how simple this all is. Do our Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights or not?

up

0 users have voted.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

@gulfgal98
of Assange on Tuesday, you are going to say, "Too Late! You had your chance. Your opinion no longer matters!"
????

Because if you aren't saying that, then doesn't the "no statement = bad" look a whole bunch like rushing to conclusions?

For the first time I'm starting to become concerned with the tone and attitude on c99p.

#8.1 and this is only my opinion in the context of right now. IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

This is not them about weighing options as to whom to offend or anything else. This is not about them weighing in on whether or not Julian Assange is a good person. This is all about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know. Full stop.

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

I keep shaking my head over how simple this all is. Do our Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights or not?

I would never attack another member here, particularly gjohnsit, for whom I have the highest regard, for having a differing opinion than I have personally. One of the big reasons for this website is to provide a place for differing opinions that are offered up and defended on their own merits. I would hope that expressing my own opinion and the very reasons for it would not be seen as disturbing to anyone. I am just one person in a sea of people who happens to feel strongly about the First Amendment and fact that only one of our elected officials can offer up even a weak defense of it.

#8.1 and this is only my opinion in the context of right now. IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

This is not them about weighing options as to whom to offend or anything else. This is not about them weighing in on whether or not Julian Assange is a good person. This is all about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know. Full stop.

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

I keep shaking my head over how simple this all is. Do our Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights or not?

up

0 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

It certainly is.,it really says a lot. None of it good.

#8.1 and this is only my opinion in the context of right now. IMO, the fact that no other candidate for the Democratic nomination other than Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel could not issue ANY sort of statement regarding Julian Assange and the US govt's infringement upon our First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of the press, is very disturbing. Period.

This is not them about weighing options as to whom to offend or anything else. This is not about them weighing in on whether or not Julian Assange is a good person. This is all about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know. Full stop.

No candidate should have to grapple with standing up for those rights, regardless of the individual who is the subject of the extradition.

I keep shaking my head over how simple this all is. Do our Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights or not?

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
a bogus, prejudiced framing so easily slips in, in describing what the other side of the conversation is supposedly doing or thinking or wanting.

That’s how difficult it is. Like the rabbi said — that controversial one long ago, who got into trouble with the empire of his time: first cast the log out of my own eye, before trying to help get the dust speck out of the other person’s.

to vote for, isn’t it? Or is it going to be a year and a half of this nonsense?

Many have moved on from Sanders for different reasons. What I find irritating is that now, (like in that article) some Sanders supporters are sounding like the Clinton/DNC did last time around what with all the finger wagging, guilt tripping, and LOTEism.

Everyone owns their vote and it can be cast as they see fit and no one has a right to say otherwise. That’s just the way the cookie bounces. It’s good to support your candidate and responding to criticism of them by correcting the record (IF it needs correcting), but not telling anyone else they’re wrong to support someone else or trying to shut people up.

A year and a half plus.
One year 6 months 19 days
One year 204 days
81 weeks 3 days
18 months 19 days
569 days
13,656 hrs and counting down
819, 340 seconds and counting down.

@Amanda Matthews@Amanda Matthews
I was just thinking today how I’ve heard some of the same things from Bernie supporters that I did from Clinton’s when I said I’m not supporting their candidate. No one is owed my vote. I’m not being shamed or guilted into supporting anyone nor am I accepting anyone telling me my reasons for supporting or not a candidate aren’t valid. They don’t have to agree but that my values are my values doesn’t make me a troll or a deplorable/horrible person.

We can also can the “would you rather have _____ win?” talk too. I’m not going to be threatened either nor am I accepting that kind of duplicitous thinking.

And if someone wants to hold me personally responsible for ruining the world because I didn’t support their candidate, go for it. I unapologetically voted Nader in 2000 so you won’t say anything I haven’t already heard.

Edit to add: we haven’t even started the primary season yet. As far as I’m concerned, this is all kind of academic at this point anyway.

to vote for, isn’t it? Or is it going to be a year and a half of this nonsense?

Many have moved on from Sanders for different reasons. What I find irritating is that now, (like in that article) some Sanders supporters are sounding like the Clinton/DNC did last time around what with all the finger wagging, guilt tripping, and LOTEism.

Everyone owns their vote and it can be cast as they see fit and no one has a right to say otherwise. That’s just the way the cookie bounces. It’s good to support your candidate and responding to criticism of them by correcting the record (IF it needs correcting), but not telling anyone else they’re wrong to support someone else or trying to shut people up.

A year and a half plus.
One year 6 months 19 days
One year 204 days
81 weeks 3 days
18 months 19 days
569 days
13,656 hrs and counting down
819, 340 seconds and counting down.

@Dr. John Carpenter
I hope none of my posts were taken as scolding or shaming.
They are intended as arguments only. I don't even shame or scold two very misguided long term friends who are Trump-idolaters. They are just very very wrong and they have the right to vote for Trump or Hillary or George Lincoln Rockwell (look him up).
Besides, you might get me to change my opinions. it has happened. I started in High school as a Republican. In my Chicago suburb, we all were, in reaction to Chicago corruption. Later I changed. I used to say "The man with four names made me a Democrat and his son made me a Liberal Democrat." Now I can add, "Obama made me a Socialist."

#9#9 I was just thinking today how I’ve heard some of the same things from Bernie supporters that I did from Clinton’s when I said I’m not supporting their candidate. No one is owed my vote. I’m not being shamed or guilted into supporting anyone nor am I accepting anyone telling me my reasons for supporting or not a candidate aren’t valid. They don’t have to agree but that my values are my values doesn’t make me a troll or a deplorable/horrible person.

We can also can the “would you rather have _____ win?” talk too. I’m not going to be threatened either nor am I accepting that kind of duplicitous thinking.

And if someone wants to hold me personally responsible for ruining the world because I didn’t support their candidate, go for it. I unapologetically voted Nader in 2000 so you won’t say anything I haven’t already heard.

Edit to add: we haven’t even started the primary season yet. As far as I’m concerned, this is all kind of academic at this point anyway.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
I Don’t think anyone here is trying to shame anyone for not supporting their candidate. At least I don’t feel so. Maybe I should have been more specific about that. Sorry if it seemed I was implying otherwise.

And I’ve read things here that have caused me to question myself or change my mind too. Same and blame doesn’t work on that, like you said.

#9.1
I hope none of my posts were taken as scolding or shaming.
They are intended as arguments only. I don't even shame or scold two very misguided long term friends who are Trump-idolaters. They are just very very wrong and they have the right to vote for Trump or Hillary or George Lincoln Rockwell (look him up).
Besides, you might get me to change my opinions. it has happened. I started in High school as a Republican. In my Chicago suburb, we all were, in reaction to Chicago corruption. Later I changed. I used to say "The man with four names made me a Democrat and his son made me a Liberal Democrat." Now I can add, "Obama made me a Socialist."

#9#9 I was just thinking today how I’ve heard some of the same things from Bernie supporters that I did from Clinton’s when I said I’m not supporting their candidate. No one is owed my vote. I’m not being shamed or guilted into supporting anyone nor am I accepting anyone telling me my reasons for supporting or not a candidate aren’t valid. They don’t have to agree but that my values are my values doesn’t make me a troll or a deplorable/horrible person.

We can also can the “would you rather have _____ win?” talk too. I’m not going to be threatened either nor am I accepting that kind of duplicitous thinking.

And if someone wants to hold me personally responsible for ruining the world because I didn’t support their candidate, go for it. I unapologetically voted Nader in 2000 so you won’t say anything I haven’t already heard.

Edit to add: we haven’t even started the primary season yet. As far as I’m concerned, this is all kind of academic at this point anyway.

up

0 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

#9#9 I was just thinking today how I’ve heard some of the same things from Bernie supporters that I did from Clinton’s when I said I’m not supporting their candidate. No one is owed my vote. I’m not being shamed or guilted into supporting anyone nor am I accepting anyone telling me my reasons for supporting or not a candidate aren’t valid. They don’t have to agree but that my values are my values doesn’t make me a troll or a deplorable/horrible person.

We can also can the “would you rather have _____ win?” talk too. I’m not going to be threatened either nor am I accepting that kind of duplicitous thinking.

And if someone wants to hold me personally responsible for ruining the world because I didn’t support their candidate, go for it. I unapologetically voted Nader in 2000 so you won’t say anything I haven’t already heard.

Edit to add: we haven’t even started the primary season yet. As far as I’m concerned, this is all kind of academic at this point anyway.